And – here you go with today’s DOings 10.13.17 US V HATJ & RKB

by / Friday, 13 October 2017 / Published in Absolute Data, HATJ, OPPT Absolute

 And – here you go with today’s DOings 10.13.17 US V HATJ & RKB

published on October 13, 2017


Comment on US reply of 10.12.17

Andrew says : REPLY
October 13, 2017 at 10:48 am
I feel it may be a statement of the obvious, yet…
Indecipherable = admission of incompetence.
Ignorance of the law is not a valid argument.
Recommend the purported prosecution seek competent council regarding the subject matter…

# 47 – Pacer Varlan Order-Referral 10-13-17


to download directly right click here

# 47 - Pacer Varlan Order-Referral 10-13-17


# 48 -Pacer Cancel for Due Cause HATJ 10-13-17


to download directly right click here

# 48 -Pacer Cancel for Due Cause HATJ 10-13-17


#49 – Rejection Without Dishonor HATJ 10-13-17


to download directly right click here

#49 - Rejection Without Dishonor HATJ 10-13-17





35 Responses to “And – here you go with today’s DOings 10.13.17 US V HATJ & RKB”

  1. Kevin More says : Reply

    So what does this mean?

  2. Tallison says : Reply

    Sounds like Dismissal has been ordered!
    Only 4 days to go…
    I am visioning Heather an Randy free with the Sun and Wind on their faces!
    Now I want POPCORN!

  3. Donna says : Reply

    Being the peasant that I am it looks to me that this court has rejected the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds but mrs Tucci has through her legal rights as a sovereign citizen followed proper procedure to reject the rejection and therefore the case must be reconciled in another court and of course another proceeding.

  4. Caren says : Reply

    Indeed she is Original ❤️❤️❤️

  5. Kevin More says : Reply

    So how does that work, if I may ask?

    Can anyone who goes to court just write “VOID” on the dox and thats it!! WOW!!

  6. Lori says : Reply

    it was refered to some elses court

  7. Thank you BZ for the updates .. prayers up always

  8. lisa says : Reply

    LOVE LOVE LOVE…. DO BE DO BE DO…. LAL LA LA LA LA DO BE DO BE DO….LOVE LOVE LOVE. The Judge sure seems like a nice guy. Loved his interview. I can hardly wait until he meets Heather.

  9. Dee Ess Double Ewe says : Reply

    Let’s hope no more dopiness from the Courts and HATJ and RKB are set FREE and UNFETTERED ACCESS to our TD Accounts becomes a reality! 😉

  10. Well, I will confess, I don’t know what that all means but, it sure sounds good and, thank goodness, I don’t see the word “duress” in there anywhere

  11. Anita says : Reply

    I must admit that these days I feel very confused… Even though I’m pretty sure I know all or most of these words I cannot for the life of me seem to comprehend their meaning 🙁
    Watched both parts of Judge Shirley’s interview and sincerely hope that this man understands how much humanity needs his highest wisdom right now.

  12. livefree says : Reply

    Do we all really believe the BEAST is gonna let freedom ring? My gut thinks not. No freakin way is the cabal gonna surrender their FRAUD to the general public. This case is going to trial and the truth will bee buried once again, just as with OPPT.

  13. suzan emerson says : Reply

    BZ, Again Friday the 13th has proven to BE a very awesome day!! I AM so very grateful for all of HATJs DOINGS, for all of Randys’ DOINGS, and most of all of your DOINGS!! Though I do not completely comprehend all these legal documents, I KNOW them to BE another big step to our freedom and to our abundance!! I AM in my heart and my heart KNOWS!!

    Much love from Spain,

  14. Dorrell says : Reply

    Well, this week will shine a light on the truth. I have read these documents 3 or 4 times and what is a glaring detail is the “government” does not know that the united states in 1871 became a Corporation? How is that.?
    These are supposedly educated attorneys. Any 5th grader can do research and find out information. I hope Judge Shirley finds/knows the truth and as painful as it might be to admit, the united states corporation is foreclosed. Action dismissed.

    • Marcus says : Reply

      Probably because the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, to which you are doubtless referring, did not incorporate the United States. You can read the whole thing here: The United States of America consists of 50 states, 1 federal district (D.C.), 1 incorporated territory, and 15 unincorporated territories (eg Puerto Rico). There are plenty of incorporated towns and cities, but neither the US nor any of its States are incorporated. I blame the internet for the promulgation of spurious pseudo-legalistic misinterpretations of legal statutes which, for some reason, people are keen to believe.

      • Dorrell says : Reply

        Oh so I guess we were not used as collateral either.

        • Marcus says : Reply

          You are correct. This redemption or human collateral concept was based on a theory invented in the 1980s by convicted fraudster Roger Elvick and taken up by others. You may be aware of its broad principles – the issuance of citizens’ birth certificates in the US since the 1936 Social Security Act involve the government depositing a substantial sum of money in a hidden account controlled by large banking interests (in some ways it is a curious offshoot of anti-Semitism because these bankers are often seen as forming a Jewish cabal). It has been discredited many times and people have gone to prison by adhering to it, but it continues to resurface now and then, like the Hydra growing another head. The internet and the constant rise of new generations of converts seems to ensure that it does not die out completely.

          • Reuben Emmanual Bailey says :

            So Marcus, are you a believer in the Constitution and that it applies (and is applied) to the people? Do you believe that the uS government is the de jour government and does not use government services corporations to carry out it’s functions?

            Can you explain the presence of corporate entities in the records that correspond to the names of the organizations claiming to be the de jour government? Can you find the source of their jurisdiction over the people?

            Would you be so kind as to share with people here the sources of those debunkings?

            Thank you for your consideration of these questions, and I look forward to your reply.


          • Marcus says :

            This is a reply to Mr Bailey. I think by de jour you were meaning de jure. Of course the United States government has sovereignty both de jure (in law) and de facto (in actuality). During the World Wars, for example, occupied or annexed countries may have had de jure governments, but these were not the de facto ones. As a modern democracy, the United States is a country which adheres to public sovereignty, whereby ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed as a concept of general consensus or will. This means that the power of government is constrained by electoral outcomes, and that its authority has as its central goal the general good. That does not necessarily mean all people are better off following government decisions, but the majority should be. There are so many good books on this broad subject, including the historical rise of western democracies, the oncoming impacts of globalization, the evolution of human rights and international law. If you are interested, the local library is the best bet. Avoid the internet if possible – analysis is often weak and disjointed and in some areas it is a miasma of misinformation. I grew up reading Rousseau, The Social contract and went on from there. it has taken me 40 years to build up a library of 4500 books!
            As to the Constitution, can anyone deny that it is always in force and forever front and centre in social discourse? After every mass shooting, the 2nd amendment is always brought up, for instance, and there has only ever been one amendment (18th – prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States) that has ever been repealed. Some are better known than others. Many young people would not realise that it was not until the 1947 Amendment 22 that Presidents were limited to 2 terms (only Roosevelt managed more).
            Just about every government in the world has State-owned, chartered or sponsored enterprises (an example of the latter in the US is Freddie Mac). These government corporations all provide public services, often of a financial nature, everything from the Panama Canal Commission to Federal Prison Industries. But the US or State governments and their Departments are not corporations in the traditional sense, even though they often have to conduct business – pay rental for government offices, engage in calling tenders, pay contractors, etc like any other company might have to do. I don’t know why this is an issue for some people. Anyway, have fun researching these issues – I always have.

  15. Barbara says : Reply

    I call upon our I-UV family to gather Oct 18, energetically, an hour prior to HATJ and RKB’s hearing, through meditation/prayer and visualize Judge Shirley making the decision to dismiss their case with prejudice. May his True Original Self shine through to help change the world, helping to ease the pain of The One People.

    • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply

      The hearing is 9:30 AM EST. : -)

      I am holding the space for each Creator Being’s Brilliance to shine through and for the proceedings to flow in Quantum for All. With the highest most expansive outcome flowing forth. (heart)

    • Jennifer says : Reply

      Hello, Barbara!

      Beautiful Doing and BEing! I appreciate you and will be visualizing with ALL!

      Deepest Love to ALL all ways always,
      Jennifer B.

  16. Joel says : Reply

    We will be with them on that day energetically and we will be there individually as Original beings and become one as it is always. Love to Heather and Randy and Thank you for for being who they are the work they are doing. Lastly Thank you BZ for a most needed update in these moments and for the work you are doing. ✌

  17. noel says : Reply

    Hi Marcus,
    Could you please tell me what law is in this COURT. Maritime Admiralty, Civil or Common law, I am not in the US. Cheers.

    • Marcus says : Reply

      This trial is being conducted in a United States District Court, which can oversee a range of civil actions and criminal prosecutions. They can also deal with civil maritime matters (must be rare in Tennessee!), but in this case, it is a fairly straightforward criminal matter that is before this court. The United States system is based on English common law, but these two systems have diverged over time – although they do sometimes look to each other’s cases for perspective. US courts have thus inherited the principle of stare decisis, which means that American judges, like common law judges elsewhere (such as UK, Australia, etc), not only apply existing law, but they also make the law in the sense that their decisions in the cases which they oversee become precedent for decisions in future cases. I can provide more information on the nature of this particular indictment (under 18 U.S. Code § 1956 – Laundering of monetary instruments) if needed. Cheers.

  18. james-osbourne says : Reply


    Are United States and The United States of America and the united States of America the same entity? Do they all have identical constitutions? If they are all the same, why are there different names?
    There is also a thing called U.S. Government. Is that yet another entity?
    Why does Dunn and Bradstreet list, “Congress, United States” as a private for-profit corporation with an address at 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, D.C.?
    Why is there a corporation named BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA?


    • Marcus says : Reply

      Grammatical reasons. ‘The’ is capitalized in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. You would not normally use a capitalized ‘The’ except at the start of a sentence. I have not seen the instance of a lower case ‘U’ except as an error. Legal documents usually just have ‘United States of America’, no ‘The’. We are talking about the same entity as regards the federal court system. It is the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution which gives Congress “broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient or useful’ or ‘conductive’ to ‘beneficial exercise’ of authority. The United States district courts have original, exclusive jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States”. The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in the Department of Justice is the chief prosecutor for the United States in criminal law cases and is effectively representing the people. So it is the people, whose elected representatives have progressively created and modified the laws of the land over time, who are calling certain individuals to account for their actions. I am unfamiliar with the other corporation issues you mention.

  19. Ed says : Reply

    Where’s HATJ Motion to Dismiss. It’s kind of hard to understand what’s happening without reading Heathers Motion. In most Federal cases, the court always denies a defendants motions. After the motions are denied a defendant should file an interlocutory appeal on those motions.

    • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply

      HATJ did not file a Motion to Dismiss.

      So the junior prosecutor recommending it be denied is mute as there is no such thing to accept or deny.

      HATJ filed a Praecipe.

      Absolutely no way to misconstrue the two for someone with some “legal knowledge”. Absolutely NONE, when you reach the level of US attorney assistant prosecutor or her boss.

    • Paul Mc says : Reply

      Hi Ed and BZ;

      If i may shed some light on this particular issue. The reason why an anomaly arises, or that there may be some inclarity about that particular filing (which appears to some to be a Motion to Dismiss of Heather’s) is because the Praecipe – [ ]- was filed electronically and when choosing the document type which the electronic filing system requires to be checked, there is no option for ‘Praecipe’ or ‘Other’. The only other choice which could be used to describe the type of document being filed is ‘Notice to Dismiss’. However, regardless of how it is described by the electronic filing system, it is nevertheless a praecipe.

      Further to your other comments Ed, the fact is, and I know it is not always easy to comprehend for everybody; but there never was a ‘Defendant’, there never was a ‘court’ there never was a ‘Plaintiff’; because all the aforementioned purported parties were foreclosed in 2012; as described in the Declaration of Facts (the trust version) and Notice of Declaration of Facts, UCC Doc # 2012127914 (as included in the praecipe), inclusive of ‘The Perpetuity’, UCC Doc # 2000043135 and the ‘eternal essence filing’, UCC Doc # 2013032035.

      Between the first filing in the year 2000 and the last one in 2013 there were many other filings which were entered to the international record, each of which accomplished a unique and individual step in the entire process and the substance of which is beyond the scope of this comment.

      Further again, neither Heather or Randy ever entered into any purported jurisdiction because that is exactly what it was; purported. It simply did not exist and which is confirmed by way of the above UCC filings which remain entirely unrebutted and therefore, not only are they true, but they are also “the law”.

      Also see the Original Due Declaration and Notice of Factualized Trust for both Heather and Randy [ ], as and from 1972 and 1967 respectively, which specifically states at Article I.D.1 & 2; & 2.c thereof :-

      1. “Nunc pro tunc praeterea preterea” duly meaning “now for then, besides, further, hereafter”; and,
      2. “Without prejudice” duly meaning: …

      c. “Being non-Original, and without full responsibility, accountability, and liability”, inclusive of claims
      and operations of jurisdiction, trusts, corporations, persons, contracts, agreements, treaties,
      constitutions, presumptions, certificates, receipts, titles, commerce, and bankruptcy, nunc pro tunc
      praeterea preterea; and, …

      So regardless on any other’s belief as to the existence of any alleged authority or jurisdiction, both Heather and Randy were very specific about reserving their position in relation to any such belief, assumption, presumption and therefore, necessarily, hearsay. Further still, it is in fact impossible for any such authority or jurisdiction to exist without the knowing, willing and intentional consent of the original being. It may be, if there was such an alternative, that the entire universe would immediately collapse and cease to exit as a consequence.

      All the best for NOW 🙂

  20. Ronald Patterson says : Reply

    The STRAW MAN _Explained_ _David-Wynn_ Miller [ language specialist ] all laws/UCC fraud in its syntax

    The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions

Leave a Reply